Standing Alone in Mecca by Asra Q. Nomani

temporal (#88),

Haquq-ullah (rights of god) and Huquq-ul Ibad (rights of man) is lost on these fanatics. They are also hell bent on killing people for apostasy … go figure.

Urstruly,

Quran specifies lashes for fornication, as well as adultery. I explained in post #66 the verse you misquoted. I also pointed out your over-interpretation of unreliable traditions to support your ill-conceived view. Comments?

Your cousin ntsyed thinks that if an apostate does not create mischief, he should be allowed to live. Is that right???

And if according to traditions (here we go again) the Prophet allowed muttah, why spoil a good thing? This is the only redeemable feature of your Islam that may compel me to come back to it … even if it means I’ll have to start believing in a two-thousand year old prophet residing above the clouds (kinda spooky, isn’t it?) ...

SR #84, {``Just out of ignorance, I`d like to ask if this great Fatawa says anything about the morality of murdering one`s own brothers (Dara, Murad and Shuja) and imprisoning one`s own father?``}

SR friend,
Obviously you are referring to that great Rajput Emperor Maharaja Tajuddin Mohammed ``Aurangjeb`` Alamgir. When Indian rulers do nothing about foreign intervention, colonialist designs, and threats to Hindustan`s independence, everyone questions their competence and suggests that they were asleep on the job catering to their epicurean lifestyles. Maharaja Aurangjeb was ascetic, frugal, brave, principled, and determined. He recognized that the Portuguese had become too powerful in his father`s court. Maharaja Shah Jahan, his son Prince Dara, and daughter Jahan Ara were all under their ideological and religious influence. Thus, imprisoning his own father was a supreme act of morality - personal sacrifice for the good of the state and its people. Similarly, his ``murders`` of Dara, Murad, and Shuja were meant to preserve the unity of Hindustan. As a great Ottoman ruler once said ``better to lose a prince than to lose a province.``

Maharaja Aurangjeb also defeated the British in Gujarat and was about to totally expel them from Hindustan - he unfortunately succumbed to their pleas for mercy. Please don`t malign a man in all areas just because of a few unfortunate mistakes.
Thanks,

Urstruly#98:

Yaar, tum bareilvi kab se ho gaye?

hamidm:
I think that urstruly was inviting you to haram sharif!

# 94

Beej does have a lovely style, doesn`t he? :)

Now, I will have to confine my jokes to the much less interesting circle of UPites.

:(:(

Re: # 98

urs,

...... you are scary, but i am more than happy to drink to that .......... i`ll be at mcormicks at about 4:00 - buy you an arnold palmer ?

hamidm# 97

mere khoon ke qatre qatre maiN Mohammad (pbuh) likha he
kissi haath ne mere seene peh aksar Mohammad (pbuh) likha he

kabhi tau Hazoor (pbuh) aayaiN gay mere haan bhi, khule gi zubaan bhi
issi aalam-e-Shauq maiN zindagi bhar, Mohammad (pbuh) likha he.

I wish you there too.

ntsyed, urstruly,

....... you guys should get together - you will get along famously !........

nt, can you get urs a visa for saudi arabia?............ it is obvious he will be much happier there instead of living among the unbelievers ........ every evening, you two can walk hand in hand to haram sharif leaving those pesky women at home to cook biryani ......

urs, i would still like to meet you before you go to saudi ..... i am curious to see what drives an apparently intelligent man to such depths of ignorance and depravity ............

# 85 Khamkhawa

The ritual of Wudhu or abulution is divided into several components. In Islamic lexicon these components are titled as Farz (compulsory); Sunnah (Necessary but not compulsory); Mustahib (preferred but not necessary) etc. The verse that you have quoted enlists the Farz part of abulution. In order to be on the safe side we follow exactly the method that Holy Prophet (pbuh) used so that we do not miss any component of this cleansing ritual. And the question whether the abulution is complete with only the Farz, then the answer is `yes` but then why go beyond one step and do what Holy Prophet did; the answer to that question is that because Allah Himself has instructed us to follow the guidance of His Prophet.

Re: # 93 ntsyed

Your thesis is - one set of rights cannot be forgone for the sake of other. We have to strike the balance between the two. However, since we are humans and to err is human we may not be able to fulfill our suties to our fellow human beings in that case God has promised his compassion in case at least our intentions were right. But only in one case God has forgone His right of compassion and forgiveness and relegated it to the man. In case a man commits the act of Gheebat i.e. backbiting someone, then only person who has the right to grant mercy is that man`s victim of back biting.

Similarly, Zakat (mandatory alms) falls under both categories of Haquq-ullah and Haquq-ul-Ibad.

Re: # 90

beej,

............ do you actually read nadia`s posts ?.......... if you do, you are one perverted masochist !

...... but i do enjoy your posts - i like your style ...... keep them coming, even if they are in response to unintelligible rubbish ...........

Re: # 88

temporal,

Islam has prescribed two sets of duties upon a man, one set is called Haquq-ullah (i.e. rights of God) which covers all the praying rituals and then there are Huquq-ul Ibad (i.e. Rights of man)....

also you forgot to mention an important fact.... the latter has precedence over the former

Absolutely wrong!

Huquq-Allah have precedence, but that doesn’t mean Allah demands of us to compromise the Huququl’ibaad. If you study and think about it rationally, you will see that even Huququl’ibaad are part of Huquq-Allah because He has assigned the Huququl’ibaad to us in the Quran and sunnah. In other words, Huququl’ibaad are part of the Huquq-Allah in broader meaning of the terms.

Furthermore, please study the sura ‘Asr (103) for the order of our obligations to Allah and mankind. This order is consistent with the rest of the Quran.

If you wish for more basic evidence, then think about the Kalima and the basic tenets of Islam.

What is important to know and observe is to maintain a balance, and for the benefit of the believers Allah has laid out the parameters, conditions, and dos and don`ts in the Quran and sunnah to achieve this balance. Forsaking, or not heeding the Sunnah, will not achieve the balance as some here insist.

Allah may forgive any oversight by a man or women relating to rights due to Him...but He won`t forgive any abuse of Haqooq ul ebaad

I’m sorry, but in spite of your linguistic skills, you’ve misinterpreted this notion. What He will Forgive as per Huquq-Allah, are the errors committed mistakenly, not the flagrant violations. The Pardon will be afforded to the ones who repent, or do something so outstanding that it overwhelms his/her misdeeds; not to the belligerent.

As for Huququl-‘ibaad, He will not Forgive until the victim has forgiven, and then He may also forgive the victimizer because He has extended this right to everyone.

That’s what His Justice is!

:-)~~

Re: # 85

khamkhwa,

Firstly, whatever gave you the impression that I suggest sunnan (Arabic: plural of sunnah) is to be given precedence over Quran?

The verse you refer to describes the high-level method of purification under various conditions. Furhtermore, the verse begins with performing Al-salaat (prayer), but the method of performing prayers is not described anywhere in the Quran except references to Ruk’u (bowing) and Sajood (prostration). Then how is a person to know the proper method of praying as well as wudhu (ablution), if sunnan of the Prophet (pbuh) are ignored which were also by the God`s command to him?

If you had verified the 50+ verses I mentioned, you’d know that Quran and sunnan of the Prophet (pbuh) are not two separate artifacts to understand and follow Islam. The latter is the detailed version of the former.

In these verses Allah wants us to follow the Prophet (pbuh) for details on a lot of His instructions lest we commit errors. The Prophet (pbuh) followed the Quran, and the rest of his actions and sayings are details and explanations of the Quranic verses in which Allah does not go into details.

Again, the sunnan are not commands from the Prophet (pbuh) on his own. Whatever the Prophet (pbuh) said or did in terms of Shari’ah were Commands of Allah. Hence, Allah’s insistence throughout the Quran upon following the Prophet (pbuh); if we wish for His pleasure.

Secondly, how could Abu Huraira (R.A) be Bukhari’s ‘main source’ if the former lived during the Prophet’s (pbuh) time 250 years before the latter?

I think what you’re trying to say is that Abu Huraira’s (R.A) name appears in most of the sunnan in Sahih Bukhari. Some of them may be ‘noted’ as weak due to the credibility and continuity of the narrator in between.

Just like the Quran, the sunnan were compiled with great care and research over a long period of time; instead of simple hearsay as you allege. A science of verifying the sunnan was developed before compilations by various scholars. In the authentic compilations you’ll see the entire chain of narrators, their credibility and continuity of the narrators through history. If you wish to know the method used to compile them, please study the subject.

Simply ask yourself the question: if the sunnan didn’t have any basis, then why would Allah insist upon us to obey and emulate the Prophet (pbuh) so many times in the Quran?

Anyway, I’m still amazed at your pride in selective reading of the Quran and obedience to Allah.


cheers
:-)~~

Re: # 80

Jawahara,

By no means was my intention to ‘slam’ anything, and I apologize if my words made you feel otherwise. I just wanted to bring a weakness in your arguments to your attention.

Another few of them are as follows:

1. Your not doing your homework to make a case for a woman in a religious anecdote, because she was married to a very religious man, (and by your allegations abandoned for the sake of God by this religious man) again render your feminist argument weak.
2. How could one strip away the ‘religious aspect’ from a religious anecdote of ‘religious persons’ – both men and women?
3. How is such a rescue “immaterial”, if the event was initiated for the sake of, or in obedience to, God?

I believe in calling a spade a spade just as much as you, if not more. Hagar (a.s.) may have been *gifted* and married to a third party whimsically, but then again, an argument could be made that she willfully consented to it. This can be supported from Nadia’s narration of events that when Ibrahim (a.s.) was leaving her alone with the baby in the desert, she too accepted it as a Will of God. If could accept a difficult test as a Will of God, then how difficult would it be for her to be ‘gifted’ to another person and ‘married’ to yet another person as the Will of God?

Unlike us, the prophets and their families lived and died for carrying out the Will of God. Sticking feminism in such instances does not do justice to the history, nor to the cause of feminism itself. One could easily label such acts as opportunism or misguided agenda, not that I’m accusing you of either.

As for the gift: if I give one of my children to a childless couple, would that be a “gift” or dehumanization of the child or the couple or my wife or my own? Please try not to box a term in one specific sense.

In terms of our discussion here, leaving the religion aside of course, do you think it would have been easier for Ibrahim (a.s.) to leave his infant son and the wife who gave him that son he couldn’t have with Sarah (a.s) until then; and that too in the desert without any visible means of sustenance? Was it not a hardship on him? How much power did he have about it?

Similarly, was it not a hardship on the baby? In fact, amongst all three, he had it the worst. How much power did he (a.s) have over his parents’ decision? Broaden your mind sis, and learn to look at the bigger picture, instead of making futile attempts to isolate religion from life.

The whole point of that event (as of many other similar events) was to prove the Existence, Wisdom, Mercy, Benevolence, and all other Definitions of God, and how He should be believed in and worshiped solely for our benefit. Our worshiping only brings Him pleasure…it does not benefit in any manner known to us. That was the main purpose of the Prophets’ lives and that of their families.

We’re ALL powerless before God; not just women. The only power we possess is to root out the corrupt elements from within our societies. But we cannot achieve that without being We – as in oppressed – against them – as in oppressor.

Surely men commit a lot of injustices against women, there’s no shortage of women who commit injustices against men. I personally know men who have experienced harrowing humiliations at the hands of their women through ABSOLUTELY NO faults of their own. I’m a witness to that before Allah.

Anyway, the confusion I have with so-called “feminists” and seculars is why do they insist on separating man from God, vis-à-vis worshiping and carrying out other duties; when until now they’ve not been able to draw a line where one ends and other begins? In Islam the so-called ‘worldly’ duties are also part of the worship. Try with all your might, but you simple cannot do that. We`re simply not designed that way.

The manner in which feminism is presented today is the feminine version of misogyny – sort of reverse-racism – which doesn’t benefit anyone. It creates a point of cleavage for the corrupt elements of the society that keep the people divided by giving them separate labels and identities for their own political and economic benefits.

By ignoring the hardships endured by men and children in your struggle for women’s rights, you only alienate men and children, and in time become alienated by them. The hard reality of life is that all must co-exist. The trick is to balance these rights so everyone has equal opportunities, pain, and whatever else life offers us.

Personally as a son, brother, husband, and proud father of a wonderful young girl, I want all their due rights availed to them, and I’m ready to die for this cause at any given moment because HAQ (truth) is HAQ and it is worth dying for. However, that shouldn’t happen at the expense of the men in my family or outside. Being a father of one girl and three boys ( and I only mentioned my daughter first because she’s my first born), I can neither allow her to be oppressed by her brothers nor afford her preferential treatment just because she’s a girl or the only girl of my little family.

Historians - I read these historical events a long time, thus I must apologize for being unable to think of a particular non-Muslim historian’s name off the top of my head. But I’m sure as an academic and/or writer you will not have any difficulty finding these…consider it part of the homework.

We can agree to disagree on the rest.

:-)~~

#87:

Islam has prescribed two sets of duties upon a man, one set is called Haquq-ullah (i.e. rights of God) which covers all the praying rituals and then there are Huquq-ul Ibad (i.e. Rights of man)....

also you forgot to mention an important fact.... the latter has precedence over the former

Allah may forgive any oversight by a man or women relating to rights due to Him...but He won`t forgive any abuse of Haqooq ul ebaad

Romair:

Comprehensive in the sense tat it addressed almost all aspects of civil and criminal law that existed at that time - which implies that Ijtehad was done and consensus achieved on various issues of both branches of law. A present day parallel can be drawn with the civil and criminal codes of Pakistan or US for instances; these documents are comprehensive documents that address almost all aspects of the law but they are not complete documents; they are evolving documents. Please appreciate the difference between comprehensive and complete.

As far as second part of your post is concerned I disgree. Islam has prescribed two sets of duties upon a man, one set is called Haquq-ullah (i.e. rights of God) which covers all the praying rituals and then there are Huquq-ul Ibad (i.e. Rights of man); these cover all the dutries and obligations - legal and moral - that are due upon him as rights of others and thus defines his rights as well. This constitutes the social aspects of a Muslim`s life.

The Holy prophet (pbuh) set an example of both for us. He showed us how rituals of worship are performed and how a man is accountable to God and on the other hand he showed us how to live a social life, how to treat friends and foes, how to fight wars and how to love his enemies; how to marry women and how to establish the first constitutional government in the history of mankind ever.

In order to deliver rights to ones fellow human being laws are required along with moral obligations. Laws are nothing but codified moral values. The processes of codification of moral values into laws was initiated by Holy prophet (pbuh) himself which evolved through the four righteous caliphs and those who followed them. The process continues to date. It is a debt upon us by our generation to continue the tradition that was given to us by Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself.

Urstruly #81: ``The latest and most comprehensive `Ijtehad` and consensus was done by Muftis in the time of Aurangzeb Alamgir, where he invited a whole cadre of ulema to formulate the law of the land. Their consensus or ``ijmaa` has resulted in one of the most revered legal books in Islamic history called ``Fatawa-e-Alamgiri`` (tr: legal verdicts of Alamgir);``

There is no such thing as, ``most comprehensive`` ijtehad. the whole purpose of ijtehad is to re-invents itself, to keep up with the times. Hence ``most comprehensive ijtehad`` would be an oxymoron. Do tell me where this term, ``msot comprehensive`` originated from. Most comprehensive, according to whom? According to you? Accoridng to people who carried out the ijtehad? Within the context of Islam, could you provide me with the characteristics the Quran lays out for a, ``most comprehensive`` ijtehad?

``Fatawa-e-Alamgiri`` (tr: legal verdicts of Alamgir);``

Whether one believes Islam to be God-send (like Muslims do), or human-send (like non-Muslims do), at its philosophical core, it does two things:

- It eliminates the clergy. Everything is between an individual and God.
- It encorauges egalitarianism, i.e. no kings

Fatwa-Alamgari contradicts both these.........Anything written under a king, by a small group of individuals he assembled has no validity............Who gave Alamgir the authority to pass fatwas, to begin with? Under what law is he doing so. Wasn`t Aurangzeb a heridatory king. A concept that is forbidden in Islam. How can a heridatory king pass such fatwas?

You seem very against using the Quran as the only source for Islam. You seem bent upon introducing other sources............